Dwarikesh v. Ashwani Kumar and others) for the offences under Section

another vs. State of Karnataka and another (arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 1570 of 2021). It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The allegations levelled against the applicants are false and no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore the complaint made against the applicants is liable to be rejected.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not press much on the issue, that the company has not been made a party.

7. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court find that definitely the complaint filed by the opposite party with regard to the dispute which is commercial dispute and applicants were only the employee of the company and they were not held responsible for the goods supplied to the opposite party no. 2. It is also evident from the record that the complaint was filed to change the entire sheets after using the same for two years and if after two years there is any defect in the material supplied to the opposite party, he may approach to the civil court for his grievance alongwith the purchase order as well as certificate of warranty, but instead of approaching the civil court, just to harass and put undue pressure, Opposite Party No. 2 had implicated the applicants in the instant criminal proceedings which is pure abuse of process of law and the instant application is liable to be allowed.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh C. Singal & others vs. The State of Gujarat & others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3862 of 2024 has held that those criminal proceedings which has been projected and proceeded as a criminal proceedings but has a predominant character of commercial dispute should not be prosecuted.

9. Similar view has been taken in the matter of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The state of Panjab reported in 2023 5 SCC 360, wherein it has been held that a breach of contract should not give rise to a criminal prosecution.

10. Again similar view has been taken in the matter of Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnatka & others 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 221.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2007 has clearly held that if the company has not made an accused, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the director of the company.

12. In view of the observation made above as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant application filed under Section 482 is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants in complaint Case No. 811 of 2009 (Dwarikesh vs. Ashwani Kumar and others) for the offences under Section 417, 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, District Bijnor are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

another vs. State of Karnataka and another (arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 1570 of 2021). It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The allegations levelled against the applicants are false and no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore the complaint made against the applicants is liable to be rejected.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not press much on the issue, that the company has not been made a party.

7. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court find that definitely the complaint filed by the opposite party with regard to the dispute which is commercial dispute and applicants were only the employee of the company and they were not held responsible for the goods supplied to the opposite party no. 2. It is also evident from the record that the complaint was filed to change the entire sheets after using the same for two years and if after two years there is any defect in the material supplied to the opposite party, he may approach to the civil court for his grievance alongwith the purchase order as well as certificate of warranty, but instead of approaching the civil court, just to harass and put undue pressure, Opposite Party No. 2 had implicated the applicants in the instant criminal proceedings which is pure abuse of process of law and the instant application is liable to be allowed.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh C. Singal & others vs. The State of Gujarat & others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3862 of 2024 has held that those criminal proceedings which has been projected and proceeded as a criminal proceedings but has a predominant character of commercial dispute should not be prosecuted.

9. Similar view has been taken in the matter of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The state of Panjab reported in 2023 5 SCC 360, wherein it has been held that a breach of contract should not give rise to a criminal prosecution.

10. Again similar view has been taken in the matter of Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnatka & others 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 221.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2007 has clearly held that if the company has not made an accused, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the director of the company.

12. In view of the observation made above as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant application filed under Section 482 is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants in complaint Case No. 811 of 2009 (Dwarikesh vs. Ashwani Kumar and others) for the offences under Section 417, 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, District Bijnor are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad